The death of God

[Eventhorizon]

Tell me someone please because I asked this a few times before with no answer. Before someone defined the idea of a god, what were people, Non-believers? Before gods existed, before they were defined, what were people? How can you be a non-believer of something that doesn't exist yet?

 

[LucyJr]

Tell me someone please because I asked this a few times before with no answer. Before someone defined the idea of a god, what were people, Non-believers? Before gods existed, before they were defined, what were people? How can you be a non-believer of something that doesn't exist yet?

Your question starts from the premise that God doesn't exist, and that's a dangerous premise, because it might be false.
Wether is false or not, its a unecesary premise. We can only use it in a very ambigous hypothetical case.
Even how you formulate your last question shows what I said to be true:

How can you be a non-believer of something that doesn't exist yet?

But since when something starts to exist when you believe in it, or when you don't believe in it? It's not a question of believing here, that's secondary. Its a question of existence, and that's independent of our beliefs or our minds. God either exist, either He doesn't.

So, starting from this very premise, that God does not exist , its just a mankind concept, one could say that everybody is a atheist or agnostic, prior before being a believer. So from this premise, which again, is a absurd premise, we could say that nobody is a believer, since we know that they believe in a illusion.

But if we start from the premise that God might exist, or we leave His existence as a open possibility, as many many deists believe, or people who have nothing to do with oganised religion, than its ridiculous to ask what where those people before believing in that deity, since even if they wouldn't believe, this Entity might exist anyway, wether someone believes it or not.

If we start from the Christian standpoint, we know that man was created by God, and Adam knew about God right when he was born. We also know that every man knows something about a Creator, because the Bible says that God placed in the heart of man morality, reason to question its existence, the thought of eternity and many things that points to the glory of God.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Your question starts from the premise that God doesn't exist, and that's a dangerous premise, because it might be false.
Wether is false or not, its a unecesary premise.
.

Even in religious texts it is acknowledged that God was not always "known" by everyone on the planet. In fact in the very beginning he was known only to a small group who then apparently got his "word" out. So, my question is relevant. What were\are the people who have never thought of, conceived of or heard of "God" called?

You cant define someone as being an atheist who has never heard of God if we use your argument. They have to know of what God is claimed to be to say they dont believe in it first.

 

[Eventhorizon]

 

[Matt3737]

Tell me someone please because I asked this a few times before with no answer. Before someone defined the idea of a god, what were people, Non-believers? Before gods existed, before they were defined, what were people? How can you be a non-believer of something that doesn't exist yet?

Your questions are a bit complex and loaded, so bear with me.

Religion as a concept is difficult to define and doesn't really have a conclusive answer as of yet. There are societies that do not have a word for religion:

Many languages have words that can be translated as "religion", but they may use them in a very different way, and some have no word for religion at all. For example, the Sanskrit word dharma, sometimes translated as "religion", also means law. Throughout classical South Asia, the study of law consisted of concepts such as penance through piety and ceremonial as well as practical traditions. Medieval Japan at first had a similar union between "imperial law" and universal or "Buddha law", but these later became independent sources of power.

There is no precise equivalent of "religion" in Hebrew, and Judaism does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities. One of its central concepts is "halakha", sometimes translated as "law"", which guides religious practice and belief and many aspects of daily life.

The use of other terms, such as obedience to God or Islam are likewise grounded in particular histories and vocabularies.

Many religions do not feature a deity and may feature more incorporeal elements associated with it. Consider many eastern religious practices such as Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, or Buddhism. Buddha is a central figure, but can one say he is a deity? Did he create the universe? There is an error of definition when we consider only the Abrahamic faiths as constituting 'religion'.

God as a concept is even less well defined. Sometimes described as ineffable, the Eastern Orthodox Church attempts to describe aspects of God by what He is not rather than what He is because of this. There has never been, nor likely ever will be a consensus on the matter.

The word 'non-believer' is just a reference for labeling those that do not adhere to one's particular denomination and hence is dependent upon the context of that particular denomination's orthodoxy. They each have their own beliefs regarding such issues, such as how our ancestors and prehistoric peoples' relationship to Christ before his arrival might be.

Spirituality, or religious beliefs, seem to go far back in prehistory. There is speculation that Neanderthals had spiritual beliefs regarding the afterlife due to possible evidence of burials and burial goods.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Your questions are a bit complex and loaded, so bear with me.

Religion as a concept is difficult to define and doesn't really have a conclusive answer as of yet. There are societies that do not have a word for religion:



Many religions do not feature a deity and may feature more incorporeal elements associated with it. Consider many eastern religious practices such as Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, or Buddhism. Buddha is a central figure, but can one say he is a deity? Did he create the universe? There is an error of definition when we consider only the Abrahamic faiths as constituting 'religion'.

God as a concept is even less well defined. Sometimes described as ineffable, the Eastern Orthodox Church attempts to describe aspects of God by what He is not rather than what He is because of this. There has never been, nor likely ever will be a consensus on the matter.

The word 'non-believer' is just a reference for labeling those that do not adhere to one's particular denomination and hence is dependent upon the context of that particular denomination's orthodoxy. They each have their own beliefs regarding such issues, such as how our ancestors and prehistoric peoples' relationship to Christ before his arrival might be.

Spirituality, or religious beliefs, seem to go far back in prehistory. There is speculation that Neanderthals had spiritual beliefs regarding the afterlife due to possible evidence of burials and burial goods.

Ok im with you...but still no answer.

 

[Matt3737]

Ok im with you...but still no answer.

Well are you asking for a particular religion or denomination's beliefs regarding ancient people?

 

[Eventhorizon]

Well are you asking for a particular religion or denomination's beliefs regarding ancient people?

What were\are the people who have never thought of, conceived of or heard of "God" called?

 

[Matt3737]

What were\are the people who have never thought of, conceived of or heard of "God" called?

See, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to tell you. That question is entirely dependent on who you ask. If you were to ask someone from whence you are referring the same question, they wouldn't understand the question. If you are asking me, personally, I consider the question entirely irrelevant and mostly nonsensical. If you are asking [MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] as a Christian what his beliefs are he may give you a response based on his denomination's orthodoxy.

What culture, language, and beliefs the person you are asking will determine the context that that question will be interpreted by. There is no single answer to your question. It is not an objective line of enquiry.

 

[Eventhorizon]

See, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to tell you. That question is entirely dependent on who you ask. If you were to ask someone from whence you are referring the same question, they wouldn't understand the question. If you are asking me, personally, I consider the question entirely irrelevant and mostly nonsensical. If you are asking [MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] as a Christian what his beliefs are he may give you a response based on his denomination's orthodoxy.

What culture, language, and beliefs the person you are asking will determine the context that that question will be interpreted by. There is no single answer to your question. It is not an objective line of enquiry.

Ok, thats one answer but I think its an avoidance answer IMO.

 

[Matt3737]

Ok, thats one answer but I think its an avoidance answer IMO.

I apologize, but I'm trying to understand what you'd like to better understand by providing you with context. The question appears to be of the sort posed to Christians about how might prehistoric people be saved if they existed before Christ arrived. You're asking how are ancient people's sense of spirituality, or lack thereof, is rationalized through contemporary belief systems by what label they refer to those people, yes?

 

[Eventhorizon]

A baby born into the world knows nothing of God until they are both old enough to understand the concept and told of the concept. We do not have to look to prehistory to find such people. So until a person is told of the concept of a god or "God" what are they? They have no belief one way or another.

 

[Matt3737]

A baby born into the world knows nothing of God until they are both old enough to understand the concept and told of the concept. We do not have to look to prehistory to find such people. So until a person is told of the concept of a god or "God" what are they? They have no belief one way or another.

True. Typically just child is sufficient to convey that they are not of legal age to make free will judgments. They may have other qualifying terms applied if they are not a child belonging to the group from whence their 'laws' apply making legal age distinction irrelevant.

This is also assuming that the group in question is one in which they subscribe to a belief in free will association, i.e. they have the ability and obligation to choose to believe or not. An example might be that we do not have the ability to choose whether we believe in physical laws of nature. Membership in the group is therefore moot.

 

[LucyJr]

What were\are the people who have never thought of, conceived of or heard of "God" called?

I think they are called "people who have never thought of, conceived of or heard of "God"!

 

[Eventhorizon]

The point being, until someone tells them their idea, the idea of God, they are just people. They are not believers, they are not non-believers. This is the natural state of a human. Just because I have heard of the concept of God does NOT mean I now have to say I dont believe in it and there for become a believer that God doesnt exist.

 

[LucyJr]

The point being, until someone tells them their idea, the idea of God, they are just people. They are not believers, they are not non-believers. This is the natural state of a human. Just because I have heard of the concept of God does NOT mean I now have to say I dont believe in it and there for become a believer that God doesnt exist.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the existence of God.
If God does exist, the 'natural' state is not really natural at all. God made us so...we can be in our 'natural' state?

By this line, we could say that when childrens don't know how to read, how to talk, we shouldn't encourage them to exapnd their knowledge, because they are in their 'natural' state.

Its all about the existence of God. We have this discussion as if the starting point is if someone is a believer, a non-believer, or in a neutral state. But this is wrong, because what is important is wether if God exist or not. This possibility only, His existence alone, should resolve any problem.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the existence of God.
If God does exist, the 'natural' state is not really natural at all. God made us so...we can be in our 'natural' state?

By this line, we could say that when childrens don't know how to read, how to talk, we shouldn't encourage them to exapnd their knowledge, because they are in their 'natural' state.

Its all about the existence of God. We have this discussion as if the starting point is if someone is a believer, a non-believer, or in a neutral state. But this is wrong, because what is important is wether if God exist or not. This possibility only, His existence alone, should resolve any problem.

Interesting how you resolve that. In the end the only way you are learning of God is being taught by other humans who are only guessing at what God may or may not be themselves.

Considering this, no one persons idea of God is any more correct than anyone elses.

 

[LucyJr]

Interesting how you resolve that. In the end the only way you are learning of God is being taught by other humans who are only guessing at what God may or may not be themselves.

It could be so. But its not about guessing. We are talking about big things, if there is a entity who created the Universe, who sustains the existence, who is the ground of morality. Those are not guessings. There are powerful arguments on each side.

Considering this, no one persons idea of God is any more correct than anyone elses.

I disagree. It doesn't follow from the premises.
Also to know this statement is true, you have to know that each idea of God is false, related to a standart of reality, a objective standard where you match different ideas.
But you don't know this, as nobody know this. So what you're actually doing, is proclaiming your worldview, your convictions, which are formed by means of faith, to discalify or sort any idea of a deity in comapration to your standard, your worldview. But here is the problem. Your standard is not the objective one, or it could be, but you have to give some arguments for it to convince me or anyone. Just like I have to give arguments for my worldview.
At least that's how I see things

 

[Eventhorizon]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] are you a person who believes that "God" has ever spoken to a person with words? If you say no, how do you feel about the words in the bible that are indicated that God has said?

 

[Skarekrow]

An interesting article for you all....


God in the Brain

One of the most amazing things about human beings is that no matter where you travel in the world, you will find evidence of man's amazing commitment to religion. The great pyramids of Giza, the cathedrals of Britain, the great statue of Christ in Peru or the stone carvings on Easter Island. The time, effort and resources that have been invested over thousands of years in creating these structures is simply mind-boggling.

Whether it is a belief in God, Christ, Buddha, Mohamed, or that we are the reincarnated souls of beings from another planet, more than 85% of the world's population profess to hold some form of religious belief. In the last census in the UK almost three quarters of the population described themselves as being Christian.

Some would argue that the mere prevalence of religion amongst the world's population is proof that there must be a God, while others would argue that religions are simply a means by which rationalise the unknown and deal with the fear of death. In this article I am not aiming to support or oppose either view, but simply to look at the neurological underpinnings of faith.

To understand man's infatuation with religion we need to begin by looking back to the earliest signs of religious belief - to a time when humans were just evolving from our primate ancestors around 2.5 million years ago.

It is now well known that the two halves of the human brain perform different functions. It is also known that at some stage in our evolution this was not the case. Why the human brain developed this specialisation is not known for certain but it is interesting to note that the development of this specialisation appears to coincide with the development of art and religion.

So why did the two halves of the brain develop differently? Theories laid out by Corballis in his book The Lopsided Ape suggest that lateralisation of the brain occurred because of the development of language, which itself originated from the development of gesture. His theory is that as the climate of the African continent changed, the forests turned to grassland and food became more dispersed. This favoured our ancestor Homo Habilis (handy man) who had begun making tools and had a relatively large brain. Casts of brains from that period suggest the first development of the Broca area which is used for language, although the throat and mouth were not yet sufficiently developed for speech.

Since Homo Habilis was walking upright, he would have had both hands free to gesture. He would also have been free to develop specialisation in use of his limbs, i.e. become right- or left-handed. This, Corballis suggests, was when the functions of the hemispheres started to become specialised. He believes that the brain power needed to develop language was so great that the brain did not have sufficient capacity to develop it evenly within each hemisphere. The symmetry of the brain was therefore lost as language developed as a primarily left hemisphere function and spatial awareness became a function primarily of the right hemisphere.

The language of gesture would therefore have developed as a set of left-brained rules and conventions. These would have subsequently been broadened in their meaning by vocal sounds, facial expressions and body language that originate in the right side of the brain. As spoken language developed the same applied; the left hemisphere being responsible for the syntax while the right hemisphere is responsible for the emotion of language.

In his book The Soul in the Brain, Michael Trimble suggests that the advent of religious belief is associated with this separation of the functions of the hemispheres. With the two hemispheres free to develop in their own particular way, language blossomed from the left and poetry, music, art and religion emerged from the right.

This association between art and religion has been noted by many other commentators. For example, Otto Rank, who was a colleague and friend of Freud, pointed out that in the evolution of the human mind, the development of art and religion closely parallel each other. Viewed from the perspective of religion the associations are also plain to see with the obvious examples being psalms, hymns and religious art and sculpture. Indeed, in ancient Greece, poets were actually regarded as gods.

Trimble's conclusion is that religious belief emerged as man's way of interpreting the "voices" of the right hemisphere. Take the opening lines of the famous poem Auguries of Innocence by William Blake as an example:

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

These are just words, yet they are capable of evoking an emotional response in many people. Other examples could be the "I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King or the "We will never surrender" speech by Churchill.

Although not everyone is a great poet, musician or artist, we all have a right side to our brains and are therefore affected to some extent by right-sided stimulus. While the language of the left hemisphere is logical, structured and with a purpose; the thoughts, ideas and concepts of the right hemisphere may at times appear to be spontaneous or even illogical. It is therefore easy to see why we might interpret the language of the left as being internally inspired (the "voice of man") and the language of the right being externally inspired (the "voice of God").

It is interesting that neuroscience is developing to the point where we are able to gain an understanding of something as complex as religious belief. It is also interesting that despite our vast scientific knowledge, we are still no nearer to proving the existence of God or otherwise. Obviously some people will interpret these findings as proof that there is no God, others will point out that if there is no God, why do we have a form of "antenna" in the right hemisphere that appears to be attuned for external stimulation?

It's nice to know that some things will never be resolved.